Find it.
The tournament structure offers TDs a great deal of flexibility to demonstrate better ideas.
In the meantime, please explain how the heck are the lower-rated players puffing up the pro purse are considered "sandbaggers"?
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
What about a new pro division?
- Thread starter Halcón
- Start date
Find it.
The tournament structure offers TDs a great deal of flexibility to demonstrate better ideas.
In the meantime, please explain how the heck are the lower-rated players puffing up the pro purse are considered "sandbaggers"?
It's the lower-rated players playing up that makes those playing in their ratings-appropriate division look like sandbaggers. Hence a sandbagger "problem".
Duh.
It's the lower-rated players playing up that makes those playing in their ratings-appropriate division look like sandbaggers. Hence a sandbagger "problem".
Duh.
Absolutely. But I think I missed something, since the post I responded to had been about excluding lower-rated "sandbaggers" from the open division. Or, at least, I think that's what it said.
It's the lower-rated players playing up that makes those playing in their ratings-appropriate division look like sandbaggers. Hence a sandbagger "problem".
Duh.
You may be joking, but this is honestly a problem. As an 839 rated player, why am I being called a Sandbagger for winning a Rec tournament (my first win, BTW?)
Moreover: why am I bowing to peer pressure and moving up to MA2 and MA1? Because I don't want to seem like an *******.
I could go round and round with this, but all in all: no, we don't need more divisions.
I was joking a bit, but I'm also calling attention to exactly what you're saying. Like oddjob posted, "sandbagging" is largely a myth. A myth created by the effect of players playing up.
The OP's suggestion of a new division at the top of the ladder, and making it exclusive to players with a rating above the threshold, might actually help dissipate the sandbagging myth by forcing lower rated players to stay in the division where they truly belong.
We're not there yet, but it's not a bad place to aspire to be.
Darth Anovin
Eagle Member
Who cares what other people say. I've won 2 events in rec and eventually moved up to int. I did so (for the most part) due to the cries of "bagger." I let it get to me. Even though my rating never surpassed 900. It was at 898 when I moved up. Big mistake. Since doing so I've played like crap in int. And it's evident in my rating. I've went from 898 to 877 in 6 months. Seriously considering going back to playing my rating until I get back on track. If I win and get called a bagger, so be it. I mean seriously, who has fun when they are consistently finishing in the bottom 25% of their division regardless of the division. Especially when they don't HAVE to be in that division.
I dunno...I had fun at the lady two tourneys I played in MA2 and I was more like the bottom ten percent, haha
Point is: I don't think adding another division is necessary. Maybe in the future we can have a "semi-pro" division, but not at this time.
Point is: I don't think adding another division is necessary. Maybe in the future we can have a "semi-pro" division, but not at this time.
NOStheBOSS
Double Eagle Member
I agree that there needs to be less divisions
Open
Masters (40+)
Grandmasters (60+)
Competitive Am
Recreational Am
With masters and grandmasters in each
Severe reduction in payout for competitive am (top 25% max)
Cool players pack for Recreational, no payout
Open
Masters (40+)
Grandmasters (60+)
Competitive Am
Recreational Am
With masters and grandmasters in each
Severe reduction in payout for competitive am (top 25% max)
Cool players pack for Recreational, no payout
Last edited:
Tfire25
Double Eagle Member
I see a future for this once the sport is big enough and every division is selling out in preregistration.
I feel like I talk out of the side of my mouth when I say that trophy only is the way to go. One of the big reasons I started playing tournaments was for the payout. If there never would have been am payouts I don't think the tournament scene would have grown as quickly and I can't imagine the pains dg would go through if we axed it now.
It's going to have to be phased out slowly like whats happening now with rec moving to trophy only.
I'm hooked to tournaments now but I don't know if I would have even tried without a chance at payout. Now I could care less about payouts because I usually get stuff I'll never throw. All I really care about is getting better and beating my buds.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 22,046
Winning the Rec Division is like winning the walk of shame.
Allurex
* Ace Member *
Why not just make the tournaments free to play in? And give everyone a tiny trophy for their efforts?
If someone doesn't want to 'donate' money to the pros, then they don't have to play.
If someone doesn't want to 'donate' money to the pros, then they don't have to play.
Darth Anovin
Eagle Member
I've had an idea for a few years, but I haven't brought it up before. However, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. (At least here locally.) And keep in mind, this is just for Men's, not masters, grandmasters, women, etc...
First, change the rating guidelines and do away with the whole Adv, Int, Rec definitions.
MPO: 975+
MA1: 950-974
MA2: 925-949
MA3: 900-924
MA4: Anything 899 and under
The smaller, 25 point gaps I feel would help level the playing field and group those closer in skill levels. But here's the catch. With what your rating is, you HAVE to play in that division. Sometimes I think that allowing people to play in a division that they don't belong in is problematic. I compare it to baseball. In order to get to the majors, you have to be at a certain skill level, hence the rating of at least 975 to play MPO. In baseball, if a player can't hack it in AAA, they get sent down to AA. This would essentially make people work for it more. If you wanna play in MA1 but you're rating is 930, well then hit the practice field. Granted, in order to imagine a system such as this, you would have to view it as if you had no previous knowledge of how the system is set up currently.
Ok now interwebbers, feel free to shoot my idea full of holes and crush my hopes and dreams!!
First, change the rating guidelines and do away with the whole Adv, Int, Rec definitions.
MPO: 975+
MA1: 950-974
MA2: 925-949
MA3: 900-924
MA4: Anything 899 and under
The smaller, 25 point gaps I feel would help level the playing field and group those closer in skill levels. But here's the catch. With what your rating is, you HAVE to play in that division. Sometimes I think that allowing people to play in a division that they don't belong in is problematic. I compare it to baseball. In order to get to the majors, you have to be at a certain skill level, hence the rating of at least 975 to play MPO. In baseball, if a player can't hack it in AAA, they get sent down to AA. This would essentially make people work for it more. If you wanna play in MA1 but you're rating is 930, well then hit the practice field. Granted, in order to imagine a system such as this, you would have to view it as if you had no previous knowledge of how the system is set up currently.
Ok now interwebbers, feel free to shoot my idea full of holes and crush my hopes and dreams!!
Allurex
* Ace Member *
So I'm ready to play in Open right now, but I have to wait 6 months to a year for my rating to get to 975? And I'm just stuck in Advanced until then? **** that.
PS: How many events do you think could realistically field a Pro Division with these guidelines?
Big events, sure. But what about B-Tiers and other events? Here are the 3 B-Tier events where I've played Open this year-
http://www.pdga.com/tour/event/17325
http://www.pdga.com/tour/event/16599
http://www.pdga.com/tour/event/17324
Those events would, in order, have 9, 6, and 5 players eligible for the Pro Division (not including players who played in Masters or other aged protected divisions).
How silly would that be?
Just love these poorly thought out DGCR message board solutions in search of a real world problem.
Well, not really.
Well, not really.
Halcón
Free At Last
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 12,038
No sillier than 911 and 883 rated dudes playing MPO. (Lawrence Open)
If Rec/Int caliber players want to play Open as an expensive lesson in hopes the experience may make them a better player down the road, I don't see what business that is to message board idealists who have no skin in the game.
